Lurker > nicklebro

Years and years of False allegations of ongoing domestic and sexual violence don't deserve backlash?

Think about it, if I sued you for defamation, and both of us rested our cases immediately without saying anything, you think that my claim of defamation devoid of any evidence or testimony is enough to win a verdict on its own? Of course not! I am making the claim of defamation, I am the one bringing the legal motion, I am the reason there is a case at all, of course it's on me to prove my allegations of defamation to be true, otherwise you're saying that simply accusing someone of defamation makes them guilty in the court's eyes until they can prove their innocence. I mean "prove their innocence" should really be enough to let you know you're dead wrong, you need to prove guilt, not innocence. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proved. Hence "Innocent until proven guilty"

Is it really that hard to admit you're wrong? Look at Randy, he made the same mistake and realized it immediately al because it was no big deal, but Jesus you're giving me Amber Heard flash backs

Tyranthraxus posted...

The other side would have to respond or else you win in default judgment yes.

Even if your claims are completely meritless I would still have to file a motion to dismiss.

No you wouldn't. You could just let it go to the jury, and since they're meritless, they wouldn't win. You could file a motion to dismiss (and obviously would) to get it over with immediately, but that doesn't change the fact that obligation is on the PLAINTIFF to prove their claim.. No one is just assumed to be guilty of defamation until they prove otherwise, you are always innocent until you are proved to be guilty. Again, if you don't believe he, listen to the CLIP that I keep mentioning. Or again, just think about it for a minute.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

OMG an adult who can acknowledge a simple mistake. Wtf are you doing here ?! Lol but yeah ugh I really wish someone would just explain this one part to me, seems like the jury should have to explain how they came to their conclusions, for clarity. Cuz really unless they actually say it, how do we know why they voted the way they did?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Why should you have to do anything in court if I say you faked a call to the police.

I don't, unless I'm claiming that statement was defamatory. If I'm claiming that statement was defamatory, it's on me to prove it. AGAIN it's quite literally on the clip I keep telling you to listen to. It's not up for debate, it literally never was. You think you can file a defamation claim and collect money from someone while having no obligations to prove your allegation?I can just file a million defamation claims and forever the other side to do all the work, or else they have to pay me?

Please stop, just think about it for a second.

Tho I will add that it's based on a "preponderance of evidence" rather than something really demanding like "beyond a reasonable doubt" , so that means if it's even 50.1% likely, that's all they have to prove. So if it's unknown but you showed a bit more evidence... I guess you could win on that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ugh again, that's not how it works. There was no burden of proof on Johnny, it was all on Amber to prove his quote to be false. Idk how she did that, I posted the text of the quote, no one has proved to know the answer yet tho.

DrizztLink posted...

Alright, I'm screwing up my terminology then.

So if Johnny made the claim, Amber countered, burden of proof could arguably go both ways in my head but obviously that doesn't matter to reality.

Burden is on Amber, it's in the clip I posted. First words after the quote is "has ms heard proved all the elements of defamation"

It's been clear cut throughout the whole trial, this is not something that I am unsure of. Plus it's common sense, If you declare something is defamatory, it's on you to prove it, not the other party to disprove your allegations.

CommunismFTW posted...

Not really. I don't feel like retyping it, but my opinion is that they aren't going to remove her role(s) from anything at all. The critical verdicts in her libel/slander were voted as "no" in the jury. Sure, he won the monetary settlement, but it's really just an exchange of assets. Depp won't be recast and won't get AAA roles, and Heard will be untouched. The verdict is basically "She made shit up, but got abused." and "The worst of her accusations were false, but he still abused her." is the technical verdict. Hollywood will run screaming with that.

Actually these verdicts conclude that she was lying about all of the abuse. This jury decided Johnny was completely innocent of any and all abuse, that much is abundantly clear. Her career is dead, his is clearly back in action. Idk how anyone could think otherwise if they were actually paying attention.

KainFourteh posted...

No evidence of a second call being made.

Where did Amber's team prove that? I thought they all acknowledged there was a second call...

Again it would have to be "proof there was no second call," not "no evidence of a second call, " because the onus is on heard's team

How did the t rex get in the building in the end? How did no one even notice it till it ate that velociraptor?

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. The statement is about what she told the police, not what actually happened. They lied in their claim about what Amber told the police.

Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt didnt do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

This is the quote that was found to be untrue, exactly which part is false?

CreekCo posted...

No worries mate. This is a rare constructive thread here that I dont regret posting in. Cheers.

You're welcome in my thread any time homie! Lol tho this is like the second time I've posted here in the last 4 or 5 years, but I used to be a regular. I didn't know where else to go to ask these questions cuz I already tried Facebook and Twitter.

Tyranthraxus posted...

With regard to.

She called the police and didn't lie about anything when they got there. The attorneys called it a hoax. It wasn't. All that stuff actually happened.

So Johnny was the one that tore the place up? As he was abusing Amber and gave her a bruise? Um That doesn't make sense broski. Obviously I know the quote, and I know something must be untrue about it, but don't just tell me the whole thing was false cuz I know that's not true. There had to be one specific part that wasn't totally true. Doesn't seem like anyone knows.

Srk700 posted...

The cap was for the punitive damages. The judge even said as such.

CreekCo posted...

@nicklebro He gets the whole 10 but the 5 was capped to 350K. So he gets 10.35 M minus the 2 M he has to refund to her, basically.

The jury didnt fill in numbers at first and had to go back to chambers to do so. They came back almost immediately so this was likely their logic.

Nice! Thanks guys. I was getting conflicting info from different sources. Yeah I was waiting for the verdict when they had to go back and fill out the damages sheet, I think that's probably where they decided to give Amber 2 mill yeah? I wonder if that was more of a compromise like maybe if there were a couple pro Heard jurors or something. Nice so Johnny gets 8 mill from Amber, one million more than he had to give up in the divorce! Sweet sweet justice.

What's WRT mean?

And what things "actually happened"? Specifically, in his lawyers quote, what part did he get wrong? You can hear the quote in the link I posted above, it starts at 7:46. Which part was untrue?

Master Kazuya posted...

Fuck off, you read that wrong. I don't mean I don't trust that I won't violate a woman, I mean I don't believe in myself to where I don't think a girl would want me in that way. So quick to jump to conclusions, hate it.

Didn't even reply to you in the first place

It was a joke man, chill. Jesus. Tho you did sound creepy, I was sure that's not what you meant lol.

You seem to be pretty stressed about this bro.. relax, the hard part is over.

CreekCo posted...

To get to the heart of the matter, the jury basically gave her the bare minimum they could to not give her anything resembling an excuse on appeal.

Oh wow, that's interesting, I hadn't even thought of that. Yeah so since she "won" on one count she can't claim she wasn't treated fairly as easily.

Ok I also heard that there was a $350k cap on the damages that could be awarded but Idk if that was for compensatory damages or punitive, do you have any idea? Cuz I've heard people say both but I think it's just one of them. It'd make sense to me if it was the compensatory damages but I just don't know. That'd wipe out almost all of that 10 mill for Johnny, but he'd still get the full 5.

Tbh I don't think he cares about collecting, but I just want to know.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

They are really more Male Supremacist Activists, as they view the advancement of women's rights (at least on paper) as a threat to their privileged position in society.

There are legitimate issues facing men that society neglects or even ridicules, such as male rape victims (who are taken no more seriously than female rape victims, and sometimes even less, somehow) and men's mental health in general. But the only people seriously offering solutions and support aren't so-called MRAs, but feminists who rightly see those problems as extensions of patriarchal control and gender norms.

So there aren't any feminists that are actually Female Supremacists? Lol the only people that actually care about men's rights are.... feminists?! I've literally heard it all now.

Master Kazuya posted...

Because I'm horrible at trusting myself with women and with this kinda thing in general

Trusting yourself with women? Now I wanna call the cops. That's a super creepy thing to say man. Unless you're like... Saving it for marriage or some bull shit like that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Lol maybe? You're obviously way too cynical if this is how you naturally see the world. I mean to reduce Linda Carter to a "failing actress" who's attempting to take advantage of a marginalized group and take credit she doesn't deserve to revive her career as your first natural reaction seems like a possible sign of mental illness, much less "a tad too much cynicism" lol. It's possible she's telling the truth about queer and trans people reaching out to her to tell her how much she meant to them you know.

But then again...after seeing Amber Heard... you might be on to something about not believing these broads.

Naw she's driving all that way to watch you play video games. She's not interested in sex with the guy she was trying to go on a date with at all, why would you think that?

Maidenless noob.

billcom6 posted...

Imagine thinking you know what actually happened in an abusive relationship because you looked at some memes and some clips of civil trial on twitter.

Yeah we shouldn't even have trials anymore cuz it's impossible to figure out what happened if you weren't there.

Why you do dis? Stawp plz.

Super cringey name with some super cringey members, but they have plenty of valid points like most groups do. But their arguments are given perhaps the least amount of respect no matter how valid they may be. It's the age of over-correction, so everyone can be hypocrites. Yay.

CyricZ posted...

So that's what "we" won?

Oh man... just realized how right you are, lol thanks for pointing out my error, now I see things much clearer. Much appreciated.

CreekCo posted...

I explained it earlier. You cannot make an allegation in a public setting with malice that you cannot subsequently prove.

For instance, if his lawyer said it looks almost like someone went back and messed up the place then that would have been a sketch thing to say but still within speculation. He said something to the effect of accusing them of doing something and he could not prove this with either a witness testimony or video footage. So it was a baseless allegation. This does not speak to the veracity of the statement. He just couldnt prove it and as a lawyer should have known better.

Um idk if this case is just out of the ordinary or something but I'm just going to have to disagree with you here cuz they plainly said the exact opposite of what you're saying. Have you listened to the verdict? If you just listen to the actual verdict you hear them say they had to prove ALL the elements of defamation of which there are seven I believe, one of those being that the statement was untrue. They explained this during the trial. Listen to the reading of the actual verdicts and you'll hear that the jury determined she proved that statement to be false. Here, I'll get it.
https://youtu.be/8LzGWvL3ugg
Skip to 7:46, you'll hear all of the elements of defamation that one must prove, and the falsity of the statement is indeed one of them. Really it was the only one up for debate for that specific count.

And I don't get why you'd think the onus would be on Johnny to prove anything when Amber is the one filing the claim... You're innocent until proven guilty, not a liar until proven honest lol.

I really don't wanna argue with you bro, tbh idk if you know far more than I do or far less, but it just seems pretty clear what you're saying contradicts what was said in the trial and what actually ended up happening.

I have a question and it seems to me that you're giving a bad answer, like ambers testimony it just doesn't fit with the facts. And I really really want a good answer. So I have your input, and I thank you for it, and maybe it'll shake out to some how actually be true, but there's nothing to be gained by arguing so let's agree to disagree for now.

Just to be clear, I'm not challenging you, I believe you, I just want to know what you know so I can fully understand why that was the right verdict rather than just trusting that it was.

CreekCo posted...

The lawyer did defame her. Thats without question. Its a separate issue and the jury got it 100% right. If you really think about it, they gave her about what she deserves her two cents. She was awarded exactly 2% of what she asked for.

Ok can you explain how it's "without question"he defamed her? I just don't know what Amber's team proved was untrue in that statement. I was under the impression that that night went exactly as he described it in that quote. What specific thing did he get wrong?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Are you sure? Cuz that doesn't seem to fit the context at all. But on the other hand it is at least a fair distinction.

I just don't see how that fits with the initial "We?" Response.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

I would think she being bisexual represents the LGBTQ community as a whole not only trans people.

You're missing the point. A straight cisgendered woman can be a trans icon just as well as a pansexual non-binary one can. Being an icon of a group just means you've been a major influence on that group and that you resonate with them for whatever reason, the Madonna/ drag queen post was a perfect example.

CyricZ posted...

Dude this was a civil court case between two rich white people.

And? You're not explaining how their case is somehow insulated from affecting the rest of the country. I mean even if you ignore things like precedence, you don't think seeing an obvious liar get away with destroying an innocent man's reputation would lead to distrust of the judicial system? You don't think more women like Amber would be emboldened to do exactly what she did? I don't get how someone could think that way...

I get what you were trying to say, yeah "we" didn't get awarded 15 million dollars. But that's not what I was saying. I was talking about the actual positive effect this verdict will have going forward. Regardless of how big or small that effect ultimately turns out to be I'm still happy we got a just verdict instead of losing faith in our justice system.

ZannoL posted...

Why is TC acting like the majority of people are supporting Heard?

Does he think thats a lot of support shes getting? Go and look at all the love and support Depp is getting. Now that is a lot.

He's not. He's acting like the amount of support she's getting is surprising. And if you're just looking at the case objectively, then it is. But when you take into account how many people could have had extenuating reasons to side with Amber and were letting their preconceived conclusion determine their logic rather than their logic determine their conclusion, it's not that surprising.

CyricZ posted...

We?

Yes, America. The US justice system served us all by not getting this wrong.

CreekCo posted...

Johnnys lawyer made a printed assertion he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You cant do that. So the jury awarded her 2 million for his lawyers hyperbole but zilch for anything else.

But he does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He doesn't have to prove anything, she was the one filing the claim. Amber had to prove that it was false by a preponderance of evidence, basically prove there is at least a 51% chance that it's untrue. This came up in the deflategate case against Tom Brady. The phrase they use is "more likely than not" but I hesitate to use that because whenever that was brought up here everyone would misquote it as "more than likely" which obviously means something else entirely and led everyone to inaccurate conclusions.

There had to be some specific part of his quote that ended up being untrue, like maybe they didn't plan it with their lawyer or maybe her friends weren't involved, but I just really want to know what specific thing he got wrong.

Regardless, justice ftw. An iota of faith has been restored in our justice system, I'm very happy we actually got the right result. Amber is disgusting, Johnny deserves this massive victory.

Darkprince21 posted...

Damn, so Johnny really flex on her hard. She beat his lawyer not him

The big part is that they clearly didn't believe any of her abuse allegations.

Cocytus posted...

From TMZ...

"Now here's the thing ... Amber won her defamation countersuit and was awarded $2 million. The defamation was based on Johnny's lawyer accusing Amber and her friends of concocting a story for the cops under the direction of her lawyer and publicist."

Yeah I know, I'm asking specifically what was proved to be untrue about that accusation, cuz it seemed to me like that's what really did happen.

I saw a good bit of this case but not the whole thing, can anyone remember what Amber's team proved to be untrue about the lawyers statement about Amber setting up Johnny between the two 911 calls?

C duh